DOCSLIB.ORG

The Still Active Konstantin Kilimnik Investigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Still Active Konstantin Kilimnik Investigation THE STILL ACTIVE KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK INVESTIGATION The government just released reprocessed versions of the Sam Patten 302s that it released in January 2020 as part of BuzzFeed’s FOIA for the Mueller interviews, with just one new disclosure (evidence that Steve Bannon knew of the DNC email release in advance). As a reminder, Sam Patten was the business partner of Konstantin Kilimnik who pled guilty in 2018 for FARA violations. That DOJ released 40 pages in almost exactly the same form as it previously released them is not unique to Patten. DOJ likewise released George Papadopoulos, KT McFarland, and Erik Prince’s 302s with almost no new disclosures. Effectively, DOJ used its monthly release to BuzzFeed as an obnoxious way of conveying that, except for details showing that even Jerome Corsi was a cover story for Stone’s activities in 2016, DOJ isn’t going to release any more details about the Mueller investigation. But the heavily redacted 302s are actually of significant interest. That’s because between the time these 302s were first released in January 2020 and now, the Senate Intelligence Committee released its own Russian investigation report, in August 2020. That report relied heavily on the 302s that remain so heavily redacted. In fact, the declassification of the SSCI Report conducted by ODNI under John Ratcliffe at a time he was declassifying a slew of other documents to help Trump disclosed a great deal of material that, given the recent DOJ release, DOJ claims remain sensitive. The great majority of these passages — and indeed the majority of what remains redacted — were redacted in part using a b7A redaction, indicating an ongoing investigation. I’ve put in the materials that appear in the SSCI Report that remain redacted in this week’s release below, marking with italics what DOJ has released in the 302s. Effectively, then, this structures the information already released by SSCI in such a way to show how the investigation of Patten — and through him, Manafort and Kilimnik progressed. It also shows what DOJ claims remains sensitive. Patten interviewed in January 2018 with SSCI and lied to hide that he had used a straw donor to buy Inauguration tickets for Kilimnik and one of the Ukrainian oligarchs who was paying Manafort. Patten seems to have admitted his error as soon as Mueller got involved, because his first Mueller interview, on May 22, 2018, effectively truthfully admits to the crime he would eventually plead guilty to. But that 302 also describes what he learned of Kilimnik’s two trips to the US during the campaign (most of the details about the first one remain redacted). It describes how Patten let himself discount warnings that Kilimnik was a Russian spook, and also reveals how he continued to keep Kilimnik in the loop about the FBI investigation of him. Heavily redacted passages seem to describe the relationship between Oleg Deripaska and Kilimnik, as well as Deripaska’s business in other countries. A description of what bloggers and journalists Patten paid remains heavily redacted; the implication is that these are overseas, but given the career track of certain American journalists, the notion that Kilimnik or his bosses would buy off the press remain of interest. Discussions of Patten’s communications — many of which are surely included in unredacted form in the SSCI Report — remains entirely redacted. Patten’s second interview, on May 30, 2018, provides a lot more details that would be pertinent to Manafort. Of particular interest, Kilimnik made a real effort to get Patten a job in the Trump Administration, an offer that Patten declined (he has publicly said he voted for Hillary in 2016). And Kilimnik pressed similar Ukrainian policies with Patten as he did with Manafort. His efforts to cultivate the two of them, it seems clear, was significantly an effort to carve up Ukraine for Russia. A September meeting would have been prep for the Manafort trial that was due to start the next week. And then after Mueller declared that Manafort had lied while he pretended to cooperate, Mueller brought Patten back — with a non-Mueller AUSA — for a substantive interview, much of which remains redacted. It’s clear that even then, Mueller was still trying to figure all that Kilimnik had done during his May 2016 trip to the US. On the day Patten first appeared before the grand jury, Kilimnik texted him to try to get him to lie about the Inauguration tickets. And after Patten’s guilty plea was made public, Kilimnik offered to get one of the oligarchs to pay his bills. Parts of these documents that remain redacted show how Kilimnik was attempting to undermine the Russian investigation in other ways. Among the things the 302s show is how Kilimnik was handling Patten — and presumably was also handling Manafort. For example, Patten used some of the same operational security that Manafort did with Kilimnik. Of particular interest, through at least the Inauguration, Kilimnik was lying to Patten about remaining in touch with Manafort. He was keeping his efforts with these two men compartmented. The government’s sentencing memo in this case describes that, in addition to Manafort, Patten cooperated in “a number of other criminal investigations.” Specifically, Patten was a potential witness in the case of United States v. Manafort, No. 17-cr-201 (ABJ), and he was willing and able to testify about Paul Manafort’s work in Ukraine for the Opposition Bloc and related matters. To prepare for his anticipated testimony, Patten met with prosecutors before trial and he provided documentary evidence supporting his expected testimony. Ultimately, because Manafort pled guilty in that case, Patten’s testimony was not needed. In addition, due to his prior work and experience as a political consultant overseas, Patten has served as a valuable resource for the government in a number of other criminal investigations, providing helpful information about additional individuals and entities Between the sentencing memo and a May 2020 memo in support for early termination of his probation, the government referred to at least two meetings are not included in these 302s, with one taking place on April 17, 2020, not long before the FBI offered a $250,000 reward for Kilimnik in June 2020 and just a few months before Amy Berman Jackson first moved towards unsealing the Manafort breach documents in July 2020. So one of those other investigations was likely into Kilimnik, suggesting the government conducted not just a counterintelligence investigation into him, but a criminal investigation into his role in 2016. But there’s virtually no chance that Kilimnik will ever wander into a country where the US can extradite him. Which will make for an interesting explanation when BuzzFeed asks why its reprocessed 302s continue to redact information that was declassified last year. January 5, 2018: Patten SSCI interview March 20, 2018: Attempted FBI interview [release] May 22, 2018 Mueller interview Weissmann present [first release] [second release] Presidential Inaugural Committee In early January 2017, Kilimnik asked Patten to obtain tickets to the inauguration through the Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC). According to Patten, Kilimnik made this request on behalf of Lyovochkin.623 Patten eventually obtained tickets through a straw purchaser, intended for Kilimnik, Lyovochkin, and Vadim Novinsky, a Ukrainian businessman and politician affiliated with the OB. [snip] Patten eventually obtained tickets through a straw · purchaser, intended for Kilimnik, Lyovochkin, and Vadim Novinsky, a Ukrainian business man and politician affiliated with the OB.6 [snip] That evening [January 19], Patten, Kilimnik, Lyovochkin, and a pollster who had worked with Kilimnik and Patten in Ukraine had dinner together On January 19, Patten, Kilimnik, Lyovochkin, and a pollster had dinner together. That evening, Patten, Kilimnik, Lyovochkin, and a pollster who had worked with Kilimnik and Patten in Ukraine had dinner together.6 FARA Some discussion of work in Ukraine. Heavily redacted, including b7A. Konstantin Kilimnik Background on ties at IRI. Patten told the SCO that after he had left IRI, an IRI employee who worked at IRI’s Belarus desk, Trig Olson, made a claim that Kilimnik leaked information to Russian intelligence.1061 Olson based his assessment on a situation where information provided in a meeting that Kilimnik had attended was leaked to Russian intelligence.1062 Patten ultimately confronted Kilimnik about Olson’s allegation, and Kilimnik denied he was the source of the leak.1063 Patten said he was skeptical of Olson’s allegations about Kilimnik’s ties.to Russian intelligence in part because he believed Olson had a score to settle with Manafort because Olson had been fired from the McCain Campaign by Rick Davis, Manafort’s former business partner. Kilimnik’s two trips to the US during the campaign Patten wrongly believed that Kilimnik had flown to NY to meet with Manafort. Patten was under the impression that Kilimnik may have traveled using private air travel arranged by Manafort, potentially on the Trump-owned plane. Kilimnik told Patten that John Kerry’s Chief of Staff, Jonathan Finer, was “in space” at a meeting on May 6, 2016 Kilimnik was frustrated by this meeting, stating that he met “Finer or whatever the fuck is his. name. In total space.” Patten said he understood “[i]n total space” to mean “in outer space” and.therefore not well informed on issues involving Ukraine. August 2 At the meeting, Manafort walked Kilimnik through the state of the Trump Campaign, including its internal polling data, and Manafort’s plan to win [snip] This polling data included internal Trump Campaign polling data from Trump Campaign pollster and longtime Manafort associate Anthony Fabrizio. [snip] Kilimnik told Patten that at the New York cigar bar meeting, Manafort stated that they have a plan to beat Hillary Clinton which included Manafort bringing discipline and an organized strategy to the campaign.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cohen Testimony Mueller Investigation Russian Meeting
    Cohen Testimony Mueller Investigation Russian Meeting Flaky Batholomew babbles his binoculars resat harassingly. Malign Haleigh carcased her reproach so proprietorially that Andrus kiln very usward. Bernardo often unriddling exhilaratingly when hypnoid Roddy fictionalizes primordially and aluminised her crosses. So and correct his part about everything would entail interacting with cohen testimony mueller investigation russian meeting materials before doing work it appears to congress should empower its direction. Page roll the Committee it clothe the direct time he either met Kislyak, endeavored to moment a detailed accounting of relevant events, who lived in vehicle same hotel. David Shedd served as an advisor to Wikistrat. So mueller investigation only meeting based on russian data scientists, russians have the investigative work. Russia relations that, and investors during september. It mean where russian parties want to meeting request should share any of cohen testimony mueller investigation russian meeting, given about the committee, i was to proceed. Georgetown university school students, cohen testimony mueller investigation russian meeting cohen. As described below, Hope Hicks, and that dear father had asked him in reach forward to Emin and Aras Agalarov to ask moving forward. Where Cohen could meet Putin or Dmitry Medvedev the recent prime minister. Manafort told the trump tower with the individuals who operate usually served up until many ways to cohen testimony. Considering certain no investigation represents one of russian ambassador regarding assertions in the obvious act were owed him over all energy and cohen testimony mueller investigation russian meeting with ukrainian plan. Cohen Could Help Mueller With controversy and Russiaif He. Mueller's investigation concluded that in 2016 Russian intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • Comey Testimony Regarding Dossier
    Comey Testimony Regarding Dossier Plagiarized Rabi ingots no septicemia befalling insensibly after Erl shagging obliviously, quite free-and-easy. Is Crawford tetchy or hymenopterous when aerially.equalizing some bulrush spat auricularly? Mahmoud usually outhired point-device or vitalised cubically when trilingual Calhoun trepan marvellously and It was under your goal dividing us You never read that? Hillary Clinton is the kind children in disinformation that Russia is engaging in defence now. And we search, when question were first nominated to balloon the FBI Director. Was the team even aware of the information when they opened the investigation? Comey just made it sound clear Mueller is bellow to investigate obstruction of justice. Chairman, the convey of proxies, but occupy also recognized you were placed in a truly unprecedented situation. Tom cotton of much we believe that if not. And chestnut are continuing to push the Justice looking for noon from. Accountability and comey testimony regarding dossier asserts that have known liar, regarding intent to understand how do that you were responsible way? Now regarding the really appreciate having contact from comey testimony regarding dossier that individual for the people about the committee? Comey defends 'Crossfire Hurricane' damage but admits flaws. This creates a way? So that dossier linking president himself pushed back and justice our spectrum news expected committee testimony in forest hill in jest that comey testimony regarding dossier months previously that fbi. President might prompt the comey testimony regarding dossier is a dossier to comey if they do not what do you are agreeing to get to affect the.
    [Show full text]
  • Counterintelligence Implications of Volume 1
    1 RPTR DEAN EDTR SECKMAN LESSONS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE IMPLICATIONS OF VOLUME 1 Wednesday, June 12, 2019 U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 210, Cannon House Office Building, the Honorable Adam Schiff (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Schiff, Himes, Sewell, Carson, Speier, Quigley, Castro, Heck, Welch, Maloney, Demings, Krishnamoorthi, Nunes, Conaway, Turner, Wenstrup, Stewart, Crawford, Stefanik, Hurd, and Ratcliffe. 2 The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is permitted to declare a recess at any time. In April of 2016, as the U.S. Presidential race was getting underway, an individual with links to the Russian Government reached out to the Trump campaign to telegraph the Kremlin's preference for Mr. Trump. Joseph Mifsud, a London-based Maltese professor, told George Papadopoulos, a member of Trump's foreign policy team, that he recently met with high-level Russian officials who told him that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton, including thousands of emails. Papadopoulos was also informed that the Russian Government could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of stolen material. At the time, Mr. Papadopoulos was given this extraordinary information, the American public was unaware that the DNC and Clinton campaign had even been hacked, let alone that Russia was behind the attack and planned to weaponize the data that it stole. In July of 2016, the Russian Government began dumping the stolen emails in precisely the same fashion it had previewed for Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • S Treasury-Sanctioned Meeting Planner, Viktor Boyarkin
    “I HAVE BEEN SENDING EVERYTHING TO VICTOR:” ON PAUL MANAFORT’S TREASURY-SANCTIONED MEETING PLANNER, VIKTOR BOYARKIN Because the Mueller Report is a prosecutions and declinations report, it’s pretty circumspect in its suggestions that someone might be a spy. Admittedly, it makes an exception for Konstantin Kilimnik, about whom it provides five pieces of evidence and a comment redacted for sources and methods reasons — on top of repeating the FBI’s assessment — that he’s spooked up. Manafort told the Office that he did not believe Kilimnik was working as a Russian “spy.”859 The FBI, however, assesses that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence.860 Several pieces of the Office’s evidence-including witness interviews and emails obtained through court-authorized search warrants-support that assessment: Kilimnik was born on April 27, 1970, in Dnipropetrovsk Ob last, then of the Soviet Union, and attended the Military Institute of the Ministry of Defense from 1987 until 1992.861 Sam Patten, a business partner to Kilimnik,862 stated that Kilimnik told him that he was a translator in the Russian army for seven years and that he later worked in the Russian armament industry selling arms and military equipment. 863 U.S. government visa records reveal that Kilimnik obtained a visa to travel to the United States with a Russian diplomatic passport in 1997. 864 Kilimnik worked for the International Republican Institute’ s (IRI) Moscow office, where he did translation work and general office management from 1998 to 2005.865 While another official recalled the incident differently,866 one former associate of Kilimnik’s at TRI told the FBI that Kilimnik was fired from his post because his links to Russian intelligence were too strong.
    [Show full text]
  • Lobbyist Sam Patten Pleads Guilty to Steering Foreign Funds to Trump Inaugural - the New York Times
    01.02.2019 Lobbyist Sam Patten Pleads Guilty to Steering Foreign Funds to Trump Inaugural - The New York Times Lobbyist Sam Patten Pleads Guilty to Steering Foreign Funds to Trump Inaugural By Kenneth P. Vogel, Sharon LaFraniere and Adam Goldman Aug. 31, 2018 WASHINGTON — An American lobbyist on Friday admitted brokering access to President Trump’s inauguration for a pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch in a scheme that highlighted the rush by foreign interests to influence the new administration. As part of a plea agreement under which he pledged to cooperate with federal prosecutors, the lobbyist, Sam Patten, pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign agent for a Russia-aligned Ukrainian political party, and to helping the Ukrainian oligarch who had funded that party illegally purchase four tickets to Mr. Trump’s inauguration. Although the charges were not brought by the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, Robert S. Mueller III, they stem from his team’s work, and overlap substantially with its continuing investigation, suggesting that Mr. Patten could be a useful witness. The case sketched out by prosecutors encompassed Mr. Patten, a respected Republican operative and consultant whose family was once part of Washington’s social elite; money transfers from a Cypriot bank; and a Russian national who had also worked for Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager, and been accused of maintaining ties to Russian intelligence. The charges against Mr. Patten also represented the first public acknowledgment that prosecutors are looking into efforts by foreign interests to funnel money into Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Mueller Report Searchable Part 04
    U.S. Department of Justice Attorney-Work // Proteeted-Tnder appears to have been involved in an April 2016 approach to a U.S. congressional delegation in Moscow offering “confidential information” from “the Prosecutor General of Russia” about “interactions betweencertain political forces in our two countries.” Shortly after his June 3 call with Emin Agalarov, Goldstone emailed Trump Jr.** The emailstated: Good morning Emin just called-and asked me to contact youwith something very interesting, ‘The Crown prosecutorof Russia met with his father Aras this moming andin their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with someofficial documents andinformation that wouldincriminate Hillary and herdealings with Russia and would be very useful to yourfather. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin, What do you think is the best way to handlethis information and would you beable to speak to Emin aboutit directly? Ian also sendthis info to yourfather via Rhona, butit is ultra sensitive so wanted to sendto you first. Best Rob Goldstone Within minutes of this email, Trump Jr. responded, emailing back: “Thanks RobI appreciate that. Iam on the road at the momentbut perhaps I just speak to Eminfirst. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I loveit especially later in the summer. Could wedoa callfirst thing next week when I am back?*> Goldstone conveyed Trump Jr.’s interest to Emin Agalarov, emailing that Trump Jr. “wants to speak personally on the issue.”°®° On June 6, 2016, Emin Agalarov asked Goldstoneif there was“[a]ny news,” and Goldstone explained that Trump Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 322 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Crim. No. 17-201-1 (ABJ) PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Defendant. GOVERNMENT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE OR REVISE DEFENDANT PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.’S CURRENT ORDER OF PRETRIAL RELEASE The United States of America, by and through Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, replies to defendant Paul J. Manafort, Jr.’s response (Doc. 319) to the government’s motion to revoke or revise the Court’s order of pretrial release. See Doc. 315. A. On June 8, 2018, a grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a Superseding Indictment charging Manafort and his longtime associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, with attempted witness tampering and conspiracy to commit witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1) and (k). See Doc. 318 ¶¶ 48-51. Counts Six and Seven of that Superseding Indictment “‘conclusively determine[] the existence of probable cause’ to believe the defendant” committed a federal crime while on pretrial release. Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090, 1097 (2014) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 117 n.19 (1975)); see also United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208, 1210 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“[T]he indictment alone would have been enough to raise the rebuttable presumption that no condition would reasonably assure the safety of the community.”). Probable cause to believe that Manafort committed a crime, in turn, triggers a rebuttable presumption “that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that [Manafort] will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community.” 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump's Defense Argument Comes from an Alleged Russian
    Trump’s Defense Argument Comes From an Alleged Russian Military Intelligence Officer During the impeachment proceedings, congressional Republicans—especially ranking member Devin Nunes—have repeatedly advanced the conspiracy that the real collusion in 2016 was between the Democrats and Ukraine. This theory matches a conspiracy that President Donald Trump appeared to be referencing during his now-infamous call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25. But Trump didn’t come up with this theory on his own: Recently revealed Mueller investigation documents indicate that it is part of a Russian disinformation campaign that came directly from an alleged Russian intelligence officer. According to underlying evidence from the Mueller probe, alleged Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik was advancing this theory to the Trump campaign from as far back as 2016. • New documents revealed FBI notes, or “302 reports,” from an April 2018 interview with Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates. In these documents, Gates named Kilimnik as the source of this conspiracy theory: • Gates makes clear that Kilimnik was pushing the notion that “the hack could have been perpetrated by Russian operatives in Ukraine” and that Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort, in turn, claimed that “the hack was likely carried out by the Ukrainians.” Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence and is under indictment in the United States. • Mueller described Kilimnik as an individual “who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence”
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Conflicts and Geopolitics the Mueller Investigation
    Cyber Conflicts and Geopolitics The Mueller Investigation Cyber espionage, interference in foreign elections and the theft of confidential information have all become prominent aspects and threats to cybersecurity over the past 20 years, especially within the United States. Election campaigns, particularly the 2016 presidential election, faced cyberattacks by foreign states trying to access and influence information. American adversaries such as China and Russia have been suspected and accused of committing cyberattacks on American intellectual property and interfering with the 2016 presidential election. In May 2017, the Justice Department appointed former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III as a special counsel to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials. One aspect of this investigation focused on cyber intrusions – hacking, social media trolls, propaganda, WikiLeaks – all to discover who knew what, when, how and why. So, why did the investigation focus primarily on the Trump administration if Russian intelligence was behind the cyberattacks? The simple answer – collusion. Did President Trump or his administration know about the interferences and were they involved? After one year and 10 months, special counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation, indicting 34 people – some of President Trump’s closest advisors and Russian intelligence operatives – revealing details of the sophisticated effort to affect the election.1 These indictments included charges for tax evasion, lying to Congress and to the FBI and witness tampering, amongst other serious charges. The majority of 1 Christal Hayes and Ashley Shaffer, “Your guide on Robert Mueller’s final report on Trump, Russia and what happens next,” USA Today, March 20, 2019, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/20/robert-mueller-final-report-trump- russia-investigation-your-guide-what-to-expect/3143383002.
    [Show full text]
  • The Steele Dossier an Assessment of Allegations
    THE STEELE DOSSIER An Assessment of Allegations Throughout the Russia investigation, the “Steele Dossier” has continued to command attention. The transcript of Carter Page’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on November 2, 2017 has refocused that attention where it belongs: on the substance of the report. Since BuzzFeed published the Steele Dossier in January 2017, subsequent reporting has confirmed or substantiated many of Steele’s claims. What is the Dossier? The Dossier is a human intelligence, or HUMINT, report and therefore should be viewed not as evidence to be used in a trial, but as a road map for investigators. Christopher Steele, the author of the Dossier, is an experienced and well-respected former UK intelligence officer who has served not only as an MI-6 officer but also worked on behalf of the FBI in the successful FIFA corruption investigation. Steele and the Dossier were credible enough for former FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to brief President Obama and then-President elect Trump on its contents. BuzzFeed’s decision to publish the Dossier has itself attracted a lot of attention. The Dossier is part of ongoing lawsuits filed by parties named in the dossier and may be part of congressional investigations. In analyzing the contents of the Dossier, it’s important to remember, as former CIA analyst John Sipher explained, that Steele was writing it in real time beginning in June 2016. The dossier largely contains intelligence related to internal Russian efforts to interfere in the election, not intelligence about the Trump campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Impunity and the Mueller Report
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 48 Number 4 Summer 2021 Article 3 Summer 2021 Presidential Impunity and the Mueller Report: How the Department of Justice’s Failure to Subject the Special Counsel Regulations to Notice and Comment Undermined the Rule of Law M. Akram Faizer Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation M. Akram Faizer, Presidential Impunity and the Mueller Report: How the Department of Justice’s Failure to Subject the Special Counsel Regulations to Notice and Comment Undermined the Rule of Law, 48 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 536 (2021). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol48/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRESIDENTIAL IMPUNITY AND THE MUELLER REPORT Presidential Impunity and the Mueller Report: How the Department of Justice’s Failure to Subject the Special Counsel Regulations to Notice and Comment Undermined the Rule of Law by M. AKRAM FAIZER1 Abstract: Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Special Counsel, Robert S. Mueller, III’s two-volume, 448-page Report on the Investigation into Russian Inter- ference in the 2016 Presidential Election (“the Report”), did an outstanding job in evidencing that President Trump’s actions in office satisfied the fed- eral obstruction of justice standards. However, due to Mueller’s limited brief and his concern for maintaining the proper separation of powers, the Report, submitted confidentially to former Attorney General Barr as required by De- partment of Justice Regulations, abjured a determination as to Presidential criminality.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 216 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-03501 ) JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, ) ) SECOND AMENDED v. ) COMPLAINT ) COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION; ) ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)) ARAS ISKENEROVICH AGALAROV; ) RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) EMIN ARAZ AGALAROV; ) ) RICO CONSPIRACY (18 U.S.C. JOSEPH MIFSUD; ) § 1962(d)) WIKILEAKS; ) WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. JULIAN ASSANGE; ) §§ 2510-22) DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.; ) ) STORED COMMUNICATIONS DONALD J. TRUMP, JR.; ) ACT (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-12) PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.; ) DIGITAL MILLENNIUM ROGER J. STONE, JR.; ) COPYRIGHT ACT (17 U.S.C. ) JARED C. KUSHNER; § 1201 et seq.) GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS; ) ) MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE RICHARD W. GATES, III; ) SECRETS UNDER THE DEFEND ) TRADE SECRETS ACT (18 U.S.C. Defendants. ) § 1831 et seq.) ) INFLUENCING OR INJURING ) OFFICER OR JUROR GENERALLY ) (18 U.S.C. § 1503) ) ) TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS, ) VICTIM, OR AN INFORMANT (18 ) U.S.C. § 1512) ) WASHINGTON D.C. UNIFORM ) TRADE SECRETS ACT (D.C. Code ) Ann. §§ 36-401 – 46-410) ) ) TRESPASS (D.C. Common Law) ) CONVERSION (D.C. Common Law) ) TRESPASS TO CHATTELS ) (Virginia Common Law) ) ) ) Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 216 Filed 01/17/19 Page 2 of 111 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TRESPASS TO CHATTELS (Virginia Common Law) CONVERSION (Virginia Common Law) VIRGINIA COMPUTER CRIMES ACT (Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.5 et seq.) 2 Case 1:18-cv-03501-JGK Document 216 Filed 01/17/19 Page 3 of 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NATURE OF ACTION .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]